Litmus: Zero-Label, Code-Driven Metric Specification for Evaluating AI Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23403v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2026 14:26:48 GMT
• Title: Litmus: Zero-Label, Code-Driven Metric Specification for Evaluating AI Systems
• Abstract summary: We present Litmus, a zero-label system that designs evaluation and monitoring metrics for AI pipelines.<n>Instead of assuming that the evaluation target is already known, Litmus first identifies what must be measured and why.<n>We evaluate Litmus on three real, code-defined AI pipelines.
• Score: 1.5377897575579675
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As agentic LLM systems move from prototypes to deployment across increasingly diverse domains, evaluating them has become both more important and more difficult. The challenge is not only that individual metrics may be unreliable, but that evaluation goals are often left implicit. Without a clear account of what a system is expected to do, how it can fail, and which failures matter, metric choices become difficult to justify, interpret, or validate. We present Litmus, a zero-label system that designs evaluation and monitoring metrics for AI pipelines by eliciting evaluation intent from source code and targeted interrogation. Instead of assuming that the evaluation target is already known, Litmus first identifies what must be measured and why, then converts those answers into constraints for constructing a justified, per-stage metric portfolio. We evaluate Litmus on three real, code-defined AI pipelines - financial account grouping, scientific QA, and inherent risk assessment - against AutoMetrics and three DynamicRubric baselines. Litmus achieves the broadest or tied-broadest concern coverage, spans more pipeline stages, produces a near-zero-redundancy portfolio, and ranks first in validity against per-row quality labels on all three pipelines - decisively on scientific QA (Spearman $ρ=0.72$ vs. less than $0.47$ for every baseline), and within overlapping confidence intervals in relation to two components of the audit framework despite using no labels during metric design. Our results support a shift from automatic metric implementation to automatic metric specification: before asking which metric to compute, evaluation systems should ask what must be measured and why.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models [49.45276299939287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly handle complex subjective tasks.<n>LLMs fluctuate unpredictably under minor wording changes.<n> resolving this duality is critical for reliable AI alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T03:35:04Z)
• Faithfulness Metrics Don't Measure Faithfulness: A Meta-Evaluation with Ground Truth [24.21103008618097]
  Chains of thought (CoTs) have become central in interpreting and auditing behaviors of large language models.<n>We develop an automated labeling pipeline that yields ground-truth faithfulness labels at both the step and CoT level.<n>Our experiments show that most metrics perform near chance, exhibit strong prediction biases and degrade on longer CoTs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T12:57:01Z)
• ComplexMCP: Evaluation of LLM Agents in Dynamic, Interdependent, and Large-Scale Tool Sandbox [61.862814740220806]
  $textbfComplexMCP$ is a benchmark designed to evaluate agents in rigorous conditions.<n>Built on the Model Context Protocol (MCP), $textbfComplexMCP$ provides over 300 meticulously tested tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T16:20:51Z)
• Variance-Bounded Evaluation of Entity-Centric AI Systems Without Ground Truth: Theory and Measurement [0.0]
  We introduce VB-Score, a variance-bounded evaluation framework for entity-centric AI systems.<n> VB-Score enumerates plausible interpretations through constraint relaxation and Monte Carlo sampling.<n>It then evaluates system outputs by their expected success across interpretations, penalized by variance to assess robustness of the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T07:54:38Z)
• Value Compass Benchmarks: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values [76.70893269183684]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs.<n> aligning their values with humans has become imperative for their responsible development.<n>There still lack evaluations of LLMs values that fulfill three desirable goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T05:53:56Z)
• SeCodePLT: A Unified Platform for Evaluating the Security of Code GenAI [58.29510889419971]
  Existing benchmarks for evaluating the security risks and capabilities of code-generating large language models (LLMs) face several key limitations.<n>We introduce a general and scalable benchmark construction framework that begins with manually validated, high-quality seed examples and expands them via targeted mutations.<n>Applying this framework to Python, C/C++, and Java, we build SeCodePLT, a dataset of more than 5.9k samples spanning 44 CWE-based risk categories and three security capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T21:17:22Z)
• Query Performance Prediction using Relevance Judgments Generated by Large Language Models [53.97064615557883]
  We propose a new Query performance prediction (QPP) framework using automatically generated relevance judgments (QPP-GenRE)<n>QPP-GenRE decomposes QPP into independent subtasks of predicting relevance of each item in a ranked list to a given query.<n>We predict an item's relevance by using open-source large language models (LLMs) to ensure scientific relevance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T09:33:05Z)
• Software Code Quality Measurement: Implications from Metric Distributions [6.110201315596897]
  We categorized distinct metrics into two types: 1) monotonic metrics that consistently influence code quality; and 2) non-monotonic metrics that lack a consistent relationship with code quality. Our work contributes to the multi-dimensional construct of code quality and its metric measurements, which provides practical implications for consistent measurements on both monotonic and non-monotonic metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-22T13:55:42Z)
• APPLS: Evaluating Evaluation Metrics for Plain Language Summarization [18.379461020500525]
  This study introduces a granular meta-evaluation testbed, APPLS, designed to evaluate metrics for Plain Language Summarization (PLS)<n>We identify four PLS criteria from previous work and define a set of perturbations corresponding to these criteria that sensitive metrics should be able to detect.<n>Using APPLS, we assess performance of 14 metrics, including automated scores, lexical features, and LLM prompt-based evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:59:19Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.